Search for: All records

Clusters of nitrogen- and carbon-coordinated transition metals dispersed in a carbon matrix (e. g., Fe−N−C) have emerged as an inexpensive class of electrocatalysts for the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR). Here, it was shown that optimizing the interaction between the nitrogen-coordinated transition metal clusters embedded in a more stable and corrosion-resistant carbide matrix yielded an ORR electrocatalyst with enhanced activity and stability compared to Fe−N−C catalysts. Utilizing first-principles calculations, an electrostatics-based descriptor of catalytic activity was identified, and nitrogen-coordinated iron (FeN4) clusters embedded in a TiC matrix were predicted to be an efficient platinum-group metal (PGM)-free ORR electrocatalyst. Guided by theory, selected catalyst formulations were synthesized, and it was demonstrated that the experimentally observed trends in activity fell exactly in line with the descriptor-derived theoretical predictions. The Fe−N−TiC catalyst exhibited enhanced activity (20 %) and durability (3.5-fold improvement) compared to a traditional Fe−N−C catalyst. It was posited that the electrostatics-based descriptor provides a powerful platform for the design of active and stable PGM-free electrocatalysts and heterogenous single-atom catalysts for other electrochemical reactions. 

We present Grapple, a new and powerful framework for explicit-state model checking on GPUs. Grapple is based on swarm verification (SV), a model-checking technique wherein a collection or swarm of small, memory- and time-bounded verification tests (VTs) are run in parallel to perform state-space exploration. SV achieves high state-space coverage via diversification of the search strategies used by constituent VTs. Grapple represents a swarm implementation for the GPU. In particular, it runs a parallel swarm of internally-parallel VTs, which are implemented in a manner that specifically targets the GPU architecture and the SIMD parallelism its computing cores offer. Grapple also makes effective use of the GPU shared memory, eliminating costly inter-block communication overhead. We conducted a comprehensive performance analysis of Grapple focused on the various design parameters, including the size of the queue structure, implementation of guard statements, and nondeterministic exploration order. Tests are run with multiple hardware configurations, including on the Amazon cloud. Our results show that Grapple performs favorably compared to the SPIN swarm and a prior non-swarm GPU implementation. Although a recently debuted FPGA swarm is faster, the deployment process to the FPGA is much more complex than Grapple's. 

We report the first evidence for the $h_b\left(2\mathrm{P}\right)\to \mathrm{\Upsilon }\left(1\mathrm{S}\right)\eta$transition with a significance of 3.5 standard deviations. The decay branching fraction is measured to be $\mathcal{B}\left[h_b\right(2\mathrm{P})\to \mathrm{\Upsilon }(1\mathrm{S}\left)\eta \right]=({7.1}_{-3.2}^{+3.7}\pm 0.8)\times {10}^{-3}$, which is noticeably smaller than expected. We also set upper limits on ${\pi }^0$transitions of $\mathcal{B}\left[h_b\right(2\mathrm{P})\to \mathrm{\Upsilon }(1\mathrm{S}\left){\pi }^0\right]<1.8\times {10}^{-3}$, and $\mathcal{B}\left[h_b\right(1\mathrm{P})\to \mathrm{\Upsilon }(1\mathrm{S}\left){\pi }^0\right]<1.8\times {10}^{-3}$, at the 90% confidence level. These results are obtained with a $131.4{\mathrm{fb}}^{-1}$data sample collected near the $\mathrm{\Upsilon }\left(5\mathrm{S}\right)$resonance with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy $e^{+}{e}^{-}$collider. Published by the American Physical Society2024 

We present a measurement of the branching fraction and fraction of longitudinal polarization of $B^0\to {\rho }^{+}{\rho }^{-}$decays, which have two ${\pi }^0$’s in the final state. We also measure time-dependent $CP$violation parameters for decays into longitudinally polarized ${\rho }^{+}{\rho }^{-}$pairs. This analysis is based on a data sample containing $(387\pm 6)\times {10}^6$ $\mathrm{\Upsilon }\left(4S\right)$mesons collected with the Belle II detector at the SuperKEKB asymmetric-energy $e^{+}{e}^{-}$collider in 2019–2022. We obtain $\mathcal{B}(B^0\to {\rho }^{+}{\rho }^{-})=\left(2.89_{-0.22}^{+0.23}{}_{-0.27}^{+0.29}\right)\times {10}^{-5}$, $f_L=0.921_{-0.025}^{+0.024}{}_{-0.015}^{+0.017}$, $S=-0.26\pm 0.19\pm 0.08$, and $C=-0.02\pm 0.12_{-0.05}^{+0.06}$, where the first uncertainties are statistical and the second are systematic. We use these results to perform an isospin analysis to constrain the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa angle ${\varphi }_2$and obtain two solutions; the result consistent with other Standard Model constraints is ${\varphi }_2=\left({92.6}_{-4.7}^{+4.5}\right)°$. Published by the American Physical Society2025 

A<sc>bstract</sc> We perform the first search forCPviolation in$$ {D}_{(s)}^{+}\to {K}_S^0{K}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+} $$ $D_{\left(s\right)}^{+}\to K_S^0{K}^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}$decays. We use a combined data set from the Belle and Belle II experiments, which studye⁺e⁻collisions at center-of-mass energies at or near the Υ(4S) resonance. We use 980 fb⁻¹of data from Belle and 428 fb⁻¹of data from Belle II. We measure sixCP-violating asymmetries that are based on triple products and quadruple products of the momenta of final-state particles, and also the particles’ helicity angles. We obtain a precision at the level of 0.5% for$$ {D}^{+}\to {K}_S^0{K}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+} $$ $D^{+}\to K_S^0{K}^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}$decays, and better than 0.3% for$$ {D}_s^{+}\to {K}_S^0{K}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+} $$ $D_s^{+}\to K_S^0{K}^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}$decays. No evidence ofCPviolation is found. Our results for the triple-product asymmetries are the most precise to date for singly-Cabibbo-suppressedD⁺decays. Our results for the other asymmetries are the first such measurements performed for charm decays. 

A<sc>bstract</sc> Using data samples of 983.0 fb⁻¹and 427.9 fb⁻¹accumulated with the Belle and Belle II detectors operating at the KEKB and SuperKEKB asymmetric-energye⁺e⁻colliders, singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0 $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0$,$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi }^{+}$, and$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Sigma }^0{\pi }^{+}$are observed for the first time. The ratios of branching fractions of$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0 $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0$,$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi }^{+}$, and$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Sigma }^0{\pi }^{+}$relative to that of$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}$are measured to be$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0\right)}{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right)}=\left(2.47\pm 0.16\pm 0.07\right)\%,\\ {}\frac{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+}\right)}{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right)}=\left(1.56\pm 0.14\pm 0.09\right)\%,\\ {}\frac{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+}\right)}{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right)}=\left(4.13\pm 0.26\pm 0.22\right)\%.\end{array}} $$ $\begin{array}{c}\frac{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0\right)}{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)}=\left(2.47\pm 0.16\pm 0.07\right)\%,\\ \frac{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi }^{+}\right)}{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)}=\left(1.56\pm 0.14\pm 0.09\right)\%,\\ \frac{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Sigma }^0{\pi }^{+}\right)}{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)}=\left(4.13\pm 0.26\pm 0.22\right)\%.\end{array}$ Multiplying these values by the branching fraction of the normalization channel,$$ \mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right)=\left(2.9\pm 1.3\right)\% $$ $B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)=\left(2.9\pm 1.3\right)\%$, the absolute branching fractions are determined to be$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0\right)=\left(7.16\pm 0.46\pm 0.20\pm 3.21\right)\times {10}^{-4},\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+}\right)=\left(4.52\pm 0.41\pm 0.26\pm 2.03\right)\times {10}^{-4},\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+}\right)=\left(1.20\pm 0.08\pm 0.07\pm 0.54\right)\times {10}^{-3}.\end{array}} $$ $\begin{array}{c}B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0\right)=\left(7.16\pm 0.46\pm 0.20\pm 3.21\right)\times {10}^{-4},\\ B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi }^{+}\right)=\left(4.52\pm 0.41\pm 0.26\pm 2.03\right)\times {10}^{-4},\\ B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Sigma }^0{\pi }^{+}\right)=\left(1.20\pm 0.08\pm 0.07\pm 0.54\right)\times {10}^{-3}.\end{array}$ The first and second uncertainties above are statistical and systematic, respectively, while the third ones arise from the uncertainty in$$ \mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right) $$ $B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)$.